Comparative federalism : theory and practice

The study of federalism construed in its broadest sense is fraught with difficulties that are reflected in both theory and practice. The term federal' has both an empirical and a theoretical resonance. In this book I shall argue that while such a thing as federal theory does exist, there is, as yet, no fully fledged theory of feder alism. At best there is partial theory based upon rigorous conceptual analysis and the pursuit of terminological precision. At worst there is crass empiricism rooted in the failure to develop concepts and define the key terms. Without this funda mental preparation it is not possible to engage in genuine comparative analysis that has theoretical implications.
Part of the problem with studying federalism is that it is a microcosm of the problem with studying political science itself. Federalism deals simultaneously with fundamental moral questions as well as with amoral matter-of-fact issues. The former, like social diversity and individual and collective identities, are highly charged emotional questions for many people while the latter involve the routine pursuit of economic profit and security and reflect for the most part calculated and dispassionate self-interest. The moral basis to federalism derives from certain inherent virtues, such as respect, tolerance, dignity and mutual recognition, which lead to a particular form of human association, namely, the federal state or feder ation. The amoral foundation suggests that no such qualities inhere in federalism at all and that it is nothing more than a particular constitutional and/or political technique for achieving certain overarching goals such as territorial expansion or economic benefits and security.
Federalism, as it is defined in this book, addresses and reflects philosophical, ideological and empirical concerns. It is multifaceted precisely because human beings are complex. It is elusive and difficult to study precisely because it arises from and reflects this complexity. And as we have already argued, federations are not simple things. They encompass and express the very variety of federalism. Like federalism, federations are both cause and effect. They reflect movement and change. Movement from one form of association to another occurs from time to time according as men's loyalties are more actively engaged by the bigger or the more limited purpose For men, at Greaves pot it may be members of several at the same time It is time to leave our Introduction and venture into the headly world of

comparative federalism and federation in theory and practice. We are now armed with the knowledge that we know so little about our subject. It is d therefore to begin this leng journey with a conceptual and methodological review designed to trace the origins of the contemporary debate about feder alism and federation. It is acknowledged of course that most, if not all of the major contributors to the debate who are included here neither recognised noe utilised this conceptual distinction. But it was often implicit in their different approaches to the subject and where this is the case I have emphasised it in the review. It does no harm to their contributions to revisit them in a different age equipped with contemporary concepts. In this way the implicit can become explicit without any distortion of its intended meaning.